Edward Thompson Co. v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
Replevin by the Edward Thompson Company against William L. Clark, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff. The following are the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the court: The issues of fact raised by the answer of the defendant, as amended by the order dated February 14, 1903, duly entered herein, coming on to be tried by the court at a term held by the undersigned without a jury, and having been tried on the 5th day of March, 1903, and the allegations and evidence of the…
Read the full summary
Replevin by the Edward Thompson Company against William L. Clark, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff. The following are the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the court: The issues of fact raised by the answer of the defendant, as amended by the order dated February 14, 1903, duly entered herein, coming on to be tried by the court at a term held by the undersigned without a jury, and having been tried on the 5th day of March, 1903, and the allegations and evidence of the parties having been heard, now, after hearing Walter Large, Esq., for the plaintiff,. William L. Marshall, Esq., for the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Although the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant provided in terms for a yearly salary of $3,000, it is evident from a perusal of the entire contract that this sum was fixed simply to afford a basis for the amount of weekly advances to be made to the defendant, and that the defendant’s actual salary was based upon the number- of pages of his contributions accepted by the plaintiff. I think it is the fdir import of the contract that the defendant was to devote his whole time to the plaintiff’s employment and that the result of his labors belonged to the plaintiff. He took the risk…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. WeisserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. v. ElliottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1975